Insolvency jurisdiction can entertain arbitral award enforcement; stamp defects and delayed MSME awards do not automatically void the award.

The insolvency framework was treated as wide enough to permit the Adjudicating Authority to entertain enforcement of an arbitral award in aid of corporate insolvency resolution, and the award's finality supported its consideration despite arbitration-law objections. Insufficient stamp duty was treated as a curable defect that did not render the award void or unenforceable in insolvency proceedings. The 90-day timeframe under the MSME framework was held to be directory, so delay beyond that period did not by itself make the award a nullity. On these principles, the challenge failed and the award remained capable of being pursued in insolvency.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority could entertain an application in insolvency proceedings for enforcement of an arbitral award. (ii) Whether insufficiency of stamp duty rendered the arbitral award unenforceable. (iii) Whether delay beyond 90 days under the MSME framework made the award a nullity.

Issue (i): Whether the Adjudicating Authority could entertain an application in insolvency proceedings for enforcement of an arbitral award.

Analysis: The jurisdiction conferred by the insolvency statute was treated as wide enough to entertain claims by or against the corporate debtor and questions arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution. The overriding effect of the insolvency statute was applied to hold that, where there is inconsistency, it prevails over the arbitration law. The award had attained finality and could be pursued in aid of resolution of the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: Yes. The Adjudicating Authority could entertain the application and the objection on lack of jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether insufficiency of stamp duty rendered the arbitral award unenforceable.

Analysis: The defect of insufficient stamping was treated as curable and not a ground to ignore the award altogether in insolvency proceedings. The award was not held to be void on that account.

Conclusion: No. The stamp defect did not nullify the award or prevent its consideration.

Issue (iii): Whether delay beyond 90 days under the MSME framework made the award a nullity.

Analysis: The 90-day timeline was held to be directory rather than mandatory. Non-compliance with that timeline and delayed submission of the award did not by itself render the award invalid or a nullity.

Conclusion: No. The award was not invalidated merely because it was issued beyond the 90-day period.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed, the award was treated as capable of being pursued in the insolvency proceedings, and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the insolvency statute expressly confers jurisdiction and overrides inconsistent laws, an arbitral award forming part of the corporate debtor's claim may be pursued in insolvency proceedings, and curable defects such as insufficient stamping or delay beyond a directory timeline do not, by themselves, render the award a nullity.

---